M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the State appeal against the acquittal of the accused Raghubir Singh (patwari) of the offence under section 161 Indian Penal Code and section 50 ) (a) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and of the co-accused Harnarayan (Naib Tahsildar), under section 165 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) DURING the relevant period i. e. during September 1975 till the date of the alleged raid 20-10-75, the accused Harnarayan Khare was the Naib Tahsildar, Rehli having jurisdiction over Patwari Circle No. 17 Kasal Pipariya wherein the principal accused Raghubir Singh was posted as Patwari. One Bhagwandas, who had moved for the trap, had purchased some lands from Laxmanrao vide the two sale-deeds dated 21-6-75, partly in his own name and partly in the name of his minor son Ramshankar. Raghubirsingh, at the instance of Bhagwan Das, had registered his case for mutation in Sanshodhan Panji on 6. 875. Bhagwandas had been noticed to appear on 13. 9. 75 in the Camp Court of Naib Tahsildar Harnarayan Khare at Renjha. In the matter of this mutation case, he had appeared before the Naib Tahsildar in his Camp Court. Patwari Raghubirsingh was also present and the Naib Tahsildar had dismissed the case by making a note in the Sanshodhan Panji (Article Q) that the vendor was not present and his written consent was necessary to be called. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief was that some time before the holding of the Camp Court on the particular date i. e. on 13. 9. 75, Patwari Raghubirsingh had asked Bhagwandas to pay him the bribe of Rs. 200/- to be passed on to the Naib Tahsildar Khare who would certify the mutation only after the said bribe amount was received by him. This fact was also apprised to him by Khare himself at the time when his case was dismissed. Being aggrieved, Bhagwandas submitted a written application dated 18. 10. 75 to the Commissioner, Sagar Division for arranging the trap against these two accused persons who were demanding the bribe amount for performance of their duties which they were enjoined to perform as public servants in their respective capacities. Trap was accordingly laid. It was alleged that on the suggestion of the Patwari Raghubirsingh, Bhagwandas was to meet him at village Patna on 20. Trap was accordingly laid. It was alleged that on the suggestion of the Patwari Raghubirsingh, Bhagwandas was to meet him at village Patna on 20. 10. 75 for payment of the bribe. Police raiding party, headed by Ram Charan Garg, Dy. Superintendent of Police, and accompanied with the Panch witnesses, arrived in the village Patna and sat in Hotel of Prabhudayal, awaiting the arrival of Patwari who did come there and sat there for a while. Later, Bhagwandas also came and then, both Bhagwandas and the Patwari proceeded together towards a nearby house of one Nathuram. Patwari sat on the platform of the varandah. Bhagwandas gave him the sale-deeds and so also the marked currency notes worth Rs. 200/- which had been treated with Phenolphthalein powder. The bribe amount was kept by Patwari on the ground by his side. The police raiding party, on getting the signal, rushed to the place but the Patwari, sensing the trap, threw away the currency notes on the other side of the will adjoining the varandah/chabutara. Dy. S. P. , Garg seized, the marked currency notes from the place where they had been thrown. Patwaris hands were got washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the washed water was found to turn into pink colour. After due investigation, both the respondents-accused were put up for trial. They claimed to be falsely implicated. The trial Court, in face of the mutual contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and so also the inconsistencies in the evidence of these witnesses on being confronted with their earlier police statements; and the written report, came to hold the view that Bhagwandass whole story in the matter of the demand of bribe both by the Patwari and the Naib Tahsildar? was not worth reliance. Accordingly, both these accused were acquitted of the respective offences. Hence now, the present appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant-State has urged that the trial Court was wrong in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses more particularly Bhagwandas in the matter of the demand of bribe and the seizure and recovery of the currency notes from the possession of the respondents-accused, consequent to unsuccessful trap. ( 5 ) I have scrutinized the trial Courts Judgment in the light of the evidence on record. ( 5 ) I have scrutinized the trial Courts Judgment in the light of the evidence on record. Although there is some ring of truth in Bhagwandass grievance both against the Patwari and the Naib Tahsildar, but I am of the view that the whole prosecution evidence is so very inconsistent and weak that it could not be safe at all, to convict the respondents accused of the offences in question; and consequently, the view taken by the trial Court for acquitting the accused persons cannot be treated to be erroneous. The ring of truth flows from the material circumstance that Bhagwandas had no animus, whatsoever, against these accused persons; and as such he would not have moved the executive authorities for taking action against the two accused. But, since, the prosecution evidence has been very much padded and embellished with certain new facts, not initially disclosed and since the trap, as it was, was a complete failure, both the respondents- accused obviously deserve benefit of doubt of the situation in face of glaring inconsistencies. The trial Court has already focussed its attention to very many inconsistencies; and as such, it is needless to reiterate the same, except to confirm what it has already commented on. Some material contradictions which go to cast doubt on the prosecution story need, however, to be recapitulated afresh. ( 6 ) IN the first place, PW. 1 Bhagwandass own admission in the last para of his deposition viz, Para 23, is found to demolish the prosecution story regarding the Patwaris demand of bribe and the consequent payment to him at the particular Chabutara of Nathurams house. From this para of the deposition, it is clear that this witness was trying to force the Patwari to accept the bribe amount, although the Patwari had said in clear terms that his case for mutation had already been dismissed by the Naib Tahsildar and the appeal was the only course left. His evidence clearly indicates that the Patwari Raghubirsingh had got annoyed with him and had chastised him as to why he was after him. His evidence clearly indicates that the Patwari Raghubirsingh had got annoyed with him and had chastised him as to why he was after him. In this background, it can well be appreciated that when Bhagwandas had forcibly tried to pass the marked currency notes to the Patwari, the letter getting annoyed might have thrown away the same behind the low wall of the verandah and then it was in these circumstances that the thrown currency notes which had not been accepted by the Patwari had been seized by the police raiding party. ( 7 ) APART from the above, there are other circumstances which go to be lie the prosecution story, due to the prosecutions subsequent attempt to improve and embellish the whole gamut of the circumstances leading to the trap. Bhagwandas, in his oral testimony, has stated that the Patwari Raghubirsingh, at the time of registration of the mutation case of Bhagwandas had accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 20/- from him and then, later, on 8. 9. 75, he had been specifically asked in private by the Patwari to pay the further bribe of Rs. 200/-, without which the Naib Tahsildar was not prepared to make the certification and that the Naib Tahsildar too, at the relevant time, had expressed such a demand to him, though in oblique terms. He has also deposed that before the date of the alleged trap he had contacted the Patwari at his house, who had insisted regarding the payment and the Naib Tahsildar too, whom he had accidentally met, in the Rehli Bazar, had asked him to shell out Rs. 200/- for certification. All these facts which undoubtedly are material, going to the root of the case, are neither found to be stated in Bhagwandas's initial complaint Ex. P-i nor in his earlier police statement Exs. D-1 and D-2 respectively dated 18-10-75 and 20-10-75. It does not appear convincing from Bhagwandass oral testimony and his earlier police statements, that any particular date, time and place had been fixed between Bhagwandas and Patwari, for making the payment of the alleged bribe. ( 8 ) IT is pertinent to observe from the original Panchnamas (Exs. P-2 and P-3) that Bhagwandas had been asked by the raiding party to keep Motilal with him at the time of the trap. ( 8 ) IT is pertinent to observe from the original Panchnamas (Exs. P-2 and P-3) that Bhagwandas had been asked by the raiding party to keep Motilal with him at the time of the trap. This Motilal, though alleged to be present at the time of the trap, has not been examined. It can well be inferred that had he been examined, he would not pave supported the prosecution case. P. W. 12 Ramcharan Garg Dy. S. P. Vigilence, while seated inside Prabhudayals hotel claims to have seen Bhagwandas paying the bribe amount to the Patwari Raghubirsing at the Chabutra of Nathurams house, but, P. W. 10 Panch witness Rameshchand Sadashivrao who was also with him, does not claim to have seen such a scene. P. W. 1 Bhagwandas himself is very categorical that from Prabhudayal's hotel, the verandah or the Chabutara where the amount was paid was not at all visible. ( 9 ) THEN again, there is material conflict in the statements of Bhagwandas, Dy. S. P. Garg and the Panch witnesses Rameshchand Sadashivrao on the question as to whether Bhagwandas was also in Prabhudayals hotel when the Patwari had arrived there. There are further enough contradictions in the oral testimonies of all these witnesses and contradictions in Bhagwandass own oral testimony which confronted with his earlier police statement, as already stated in detail by the trial court. In view of these contradictions, the view taken by the trial Court for acquitting the respondents- accused, is found to be quite rational and reasonable calling for no interference. Although the conduct of the respondents-accused in, the matter of non-certification in the Sanshodhan Panji is undoubtedly found to be quite suspicious but, mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof; and as such, in the absence of cogent and clinching evidence in the matter of the serious offences of the present nature, the respondent-accused have to be given the benefit of doubt. ( 10 ) IN the result, thus, the State-appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed; and the order of acquittal of the respondents-accused is maintained. Their bail-bonds are hence discharged. Appeal dismissed. .